Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


What's in a Game?


Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

  • You cannot reply to this topic
20 replies to this topic

#1 Tutorial Doctor   Members   -  Reputation: 1406

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 29 January 2014 - 03:06 AM

What really makes games so integral in human culture. Games are historic by nature. Good game design predates the Atari. 

 

I have been watching videos on table top games and I just started reading the wikipedia entry on games:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game

 

Now, I am new to game programming, and as I have said in other posts, I think there is so much left uncovered about games in video game design. 

 

So, I am on a mission to uncover exactly why games are so much a part of human interaction. 

 

The wikipedia article gives me some insight into game design, as well as the videos I have seen, but I do see something else in games, I can't quite place a finger on it, but there is more to games that I am sure most "gamers" will ever realize. 

 

Anyone have any ideas as to what this special phenomena might be (I don't think it is quite human interaction, especially when I think of war-gaming).

 

Chris Craford's definition of a gamean interactive, goal-oriented activity, with active agents to play against, in which players (including active agents) can interfere with each other.


Edited by Tutorial Doctor, 29 January 2014 - 03:18 AM.

They call me the Tutorial Doctor.


Sponsor:

#2 sunandshadow   Moderators   -  Reputation: 4578

Like
5Likes
Like

Posted 29 January 2014 - 05:27 AM

I'd start by looking at play, rather than gaming which is a specific type of play.  Mammals in general have the instinct to play as a form of self-education.  Aristotle said that consuming fiction is a form of pretend play, which is a type of mimesis.  Mimesis means imitation or emulation, and it is the greek word that our word meme comes from.  Mimesis is a specific type of pretend play where humans playfully imitate activities they might theoretically have to do in real life at some point.  (For very loose definitions of "theoretically", as it can include fantasy and science fiction elements.)  Video games are definitely this type of play; whether we are being a warrior slaying monsters, tending crops, knocking block towers down with slingshots, being a rock star, or driving vehicles, games enable us to play at all sorts of activities.

 

Games such as board games, card games, and team sports can be defined simply as play with some sort of scoring added.  A game does not in fact require agents other than a single player; hop scotch is a simple example of a game which can be played with only a player agent.  I don't think the stone counts as an agent.  Darts is the same idea; there is only a player agent, assuming that the darts, the wind and other physics elements, and the dart board don't count.


I want to help design a "sandpark" MMO. Optional interactive story with quests and deeply characterized NPCs, plus sandbox elements like player-craftable housing and lots of other crafting. If you are starting a design of this type, please PM me.

#3 ActiveUnique   Members   -  Reputation: 769

Like
2Likes
Like

Posted 29 January 2014 - 07:04 PM

Like Sun mentioned you could start with understanding play.

 

I think what you were trying to get at is there's a deeply rooted Psychology necessary to understand games 'why?'. I'm just going to propose now that it's easier not to question.

 

 

But some of what you mentioned sounded more like a complaint that you're stuck, not sure where to go.

 

 

I can't remember the exact name of the hierarchy, but I know it looked like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloom%27s_taxonomy#Cognitive

 

What you want to do is learn how to analyze, evaluate, and create; and know that if you just started it's impossible. At the rookie stage recognition is when you finally stand up on both legs from crawling and say you like games; and it's there that most game developers will be stuck recognizing they enjoyed a particular game, they don't quite know why or what to do with it. It is a common (human) fault to skip straight to evaluation and make gut judgements about how improvements are everywhere and anything.

 

So the short answer is a game was based on every game that came before it.

 

The media would like you to believe that every moment recorded now is a historical moment.


Mr. obvious was too ironic - ActiveUnique


#4 Tutorial Doctor   Members   -  Reputation: 1406

Like
2Likes
Like

Posted 29 January 2014 - 08:07 PM


Mimesis is a specific type of pretend play where humans playfully imitate activities they might theoretically have to do in real life at some point

 

Perfect post! That is what I was thinking, that games are a way of emulating real life without the risks. It can be a form of practice for real life also. This is an interesting thing though. For this reason, games have to be interactive. Which makes me wonder why gaming companies hold your hand even more!! 

 

You see, I have a previous post about why Tomb Raider is no longer a good game. What I was trying to convey in that post has come out in this one, and your post makes it even clearer. 

 

I said that games should be challenging, and that they should not hold your hand. 

 

That post was sparked by a conversation my cousin and I had, where we had observed the world, and saw how society wants to pacify people by giving them things they did nothing to earn, thereby making them think they have accomplished something without accomplishing anything worthwhile. 

 

It is more a degradation of society as a whole. 

 

In real life, no one holds your hands. No one solves problems for you. So for this reason I think games should be designed in such a way to present challenges that are actually challenging. 

 

That post also lead to a post I made about education in games. I finally understand games, and their real purpose. Now I could make a game that can hold up and be of real value. The fun aspect sorta does make it more a game than a simulation though. 

 

I finally broke through the barrier that was keeping me from understanding the gaming industry. Of course, I have less respect for AAA companies even more so now.

 

Thanks for the great post. 


They call me the Tutorial Doctor.


#5 sunandshadow   Moderators   -  Reputation: 4578

Like
2Likes
Like

Posted 29 January 2014 - 10:28 PM

Thank you for the compliments, glad you liked the post.  smile.png   As far as "hand-holding", I don't think the issue is as one-sided as you are seeing it.  Tasks in real life do often take place in a framework that has been designed by someone else to streamline a process.  Tutorials for everything from plumbing repair to seducing people to painting like VanGogh abound on the internet, and the person who knows how to seek out and use help has many advantages over the person who prefers a trial and error method.  Jobs too often involve following an official list of steps and filling out paperwork, and for those still in school, doing homework requires much the same kind of patience that playing through tutorials in games does.  In fact we pay colleges huge amounts of money to do a bit of hand-holding us through higher education because the professor/lecture/textbook system has for centuries been demonstrated to be waaaaay more efficient at educating people than self-study or apprenticeship.

 

David Deutsch, among others, has written about the fact that for much of human history being good at conforming to society was much more important to reproductive success than being good at innovation or creative problem solving.  Only since the renaissance have some human societies decided individual achievements are more important than being a team player; probably as a direct result of capitalism becoming pervasive and partially replacing social approval as the determining factor of who gets to marry and reproduce and who doesn't.

 

None of that is directly related to the question of whether more challenging or less challenging games are more fun.  But Simon Lesser wrote something about fiction which I think is the key to relating the two ideas.  He said, the goal in creating fiction is to remove "distracting irrelevancies" and instead present an experience which is more intense than real life.  In other words, the goal is verisimilitude but not realism.  Many of the traditional difficulties in games were distracting irrelevancies that weren't there because they made the game fun, but instead because interfaces were primitive, user-friendliness was still evolving, and the development budget for each individual game could only support a few innovations in "hand-holding", even though many people even back in the 80s would have liked games to be easier to learn how to play.

 

Here's a personal example: the Rock Band games.  They have 4 difficulty settings.  The easy difficulty in the game is inarguably MUCH easier than whatever the real musicians did to produce the song.  Yet, even the easy difficulty setting in the game is highly challenging to someone who isn't familiar with the guitar or drum controller.  Of the two, the guitar controller bears some similarity to a gamepad or wiimote, so people who have gaming experience will have a bit of a starting place there, but the drums insert drumsticks and a foot pedal into the process, so experience at pushing buttons isn't really helpful.  For me personally, even at Easy difficulty and with tutorials I found it so hard to gain that initial competence at drums that I almost gave up on trying to play with that controller.  I'm much better at the guitars, but I still prefer playing at Easy difficulty with them to playing at Medium because I want to enjoy listening to the music and have fun earning positive feedback from the game, not have to concentrate so hard on hitting notes that I feel stressed, and screw up so often that I feel judged unsatisfactory, and can't enjoy the music.


I want to help design a "sandpark" MMO. Optional interactive story with quests and deeply characterized NPCs, plus sandbox elements like player-craftable housing and lots of other crafting. If you are starting a design of this type, please PM me.

#6 Tutorial Doctor   Members   -  Reputation: 1406

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 30 January 2014 - 11:18 AM

David Deutsch has a very interesting point about conforming to society, and I think that is one of the issues. Sure, it is easier, but not entirely dependable, nor is it a good way to be. Soceity is changing indeed, for the worse. Conform? Well, I wouldn't like to, but as you say, it could be (sorta has been)a determing factor, especially in this capitalist society, of who get's married and who doesnt, who has a job and who doesnt, who can eat and who can't.

I do think structured education is a more efficent method of education, as long as it has useful content in it, and for the most part, I can get the same information doing it myself and saving the money I'd owe in student loans.

Good illustration of Rockband and difficulty settings. yeah, soometimes you want to just play for the fun of it, not to strain and wreck your brain over a game. I have played UNO for the fun of it, and can play the same game at a higher skill level (more consideration).

There was a post in one of my other threads where someone said that AAA companies try to appeal to soceity, and sell which games society is likely to play, because they want a profit, yet, at the same time arent't they also influencing society in that matter by conforming to it?

They call me the Tutorial Doctor.


#7 Navezof   Members   -  Reputation: 956

Like
1Likes
Like

Posted 31 January 2014 - 08:31 AM



A video series about game design, worth watching it :)

Or another definition from the book : Art of Game Design by Jess Schell. (which I highly recommend)

"A game is a problem solving activity, approached with a playful attitude."



#8 Tutorial Doctor   Members   -  Reputation: 1406

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 31 January 2014 - 12:29 PM

Neat video Navezof, gives me a little more insight, but I think it is too broad in its definition of game.

The reason we need definitions is because we need a means to distinguish it from other things.

If a game is whatever you want it to be, can a game be a cup?

Not all things can be left to interpretation.

In the Wikipedia article, it distinguishes a game from a puzzle, from a toy.

It also tells how you can turn a toy into a game (did this as a child).

Is Tetris a puzzle or game? In which case is it a puzzle, and in which case is it a game? The subject of "Game Theory" has a standard definition of a game, which I will have to look up again once I get the chance.

They call me the Tutorial Doctor.


#9 Wai   Members   -  Reputation: 861

Like
3Likes
Like

Posted 03 February 2014 - 02:30 AM

A difference between a puzzle and a game is that a puzzle does not define an interaction that drives the outcome toward failure for the player, that the player can avoid with knowledge and/or skill.

 

In Tetris, once the game starts, if the player does nothing the blocks stack to the top and the player gets a gameover.

 

The session where block starts falling and the player can move and rotate -> A defined interaction involving the player

If the blocks stack to the top the player loses -> A defined failure mode for the player

The blocks tend to stack toward the top unless the player does something -> A force from the design of the interaction that drives towards the failure mode

The player decides where to put the block -> Knowledge and skill that the player can use to avoid the failure mode

 

Toy: May not have a defined interaction

Recreation: May not have a defined failure mode

Puzzle: May not drive the player toward failure

Coin-flip: May not provide the player a way to avoid failure

 

To turn an interaction into a game is to define these:

1. Failure mode - Define a state where the player loses

2. Failure-driving force - Design how the interaction would drive toward failure (if the player doesn't do anything)

3. Gameplay - Design what decisions and actions the player can do to avoid failure

 

 

The reason we need definitions is because we need a means to distinguish it from other things.

 

A reason you want definitions, is that when you get good at defining things, you can define these what "the best game" means and you will know how to design it accordingly.



#10 Tutorial Doctor   Members   -  Reputation: 1406

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 03 February 2014 - 09:51 AM

Good posts Active. And Wai! This reminds me of a recent popular game (that I knew was an instant classic)- Disney Infinity.

That game has some good elements. They have almost all the elements of play that make something fun.

You can play a game, or you can play with toys. You don't really play a puzzle (you solve it).

That game had all of these forms of play.

I wonder if there is a such term as "play mechanics", because peronally, there are few games that feel like play. These war games feel like training or simulation.

Seems one would also have to distinguish genreral play from gameplay.

This leads to another question. What makes a game a fun game?

They call me the Tutorial Doctor.


#11 ActiveUnique   Members   -  Reputation: 769

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 03 February 2014 - 11:25 AM


This leads to another question. What makes a game a fun game?

 

What is fun? It's a learned response (back to psychology).  Playing games to win might be just one of an infinite number of possibilities, but I think we'll agree it's the most common.

 

Here's a rhetorical situation. Two boys play a board game for the very first time with adult supervision. The parents are all avid players and they have fun watching the game. The winner is cajoled and whether the game is random chance or not he thinks he did something right. The other player gets a pat on the back and a maybe next time, he's either bored or he'll cry for attention. Either way, one boy learns it's fun to win, the other boy observed it's fun to win.

 

Continuing on. In the case of the board game we have the fame vs shame phenomenon. Later in life the boys learn they are slightly talented in respective areas, one may know math with good hand-eye coordination, the other likes to experiment and is incredibly patient with attention in detail. If given a chance, they'll discover they win more when playing to their strength, they may even get better.

So this goes on.

 

 

Another more complex example. A high stakes player with the most money at the end wins. Just winning is fun. For a shark, new tricks earn even more money, and becoming a con artist through deception is very valuable.

 

 

Not exactly a change of topic, but the following will sound odd. It's possible for people to play games and sound like they are not having fun, specifically because it annoys them. I saw someone play games, not feel a challenge, and complain about how inevitable it is the game would force them to lose if they hadn't gone to extreme lengths to win. I can only guess they had fun in denial, or there was some extrinsic reward like adrenaline or masochism.


Mr. obvious was too ironic - ActiveUnique


#12 Wai   Members   -  Reputation: 861

Like
2Likes
Like

Posted 03 February 2014 - 03:25 PM

To echo a concept mentioned in Navezof's video, it is useful to identify which part of the design is the objective and which part is the implementation. When we ask the question "How to make a fun game?" we need to acknowledge that we are limiting the scope to the context of games, which might not be an objective, but an implementation. Prematurely deciding that you are "making a game" could limit your design space to achieve your objective.

 

 

I think what makes something fun is the anticipation of a cognitively rewarding experience.

 

An interaction is not fun until the participant is being cognitively rewarded, or can look forward to that.

 

What is cognitively rewarding for one person might be different from another person. What is fun for a person can change over time. A person can learn or unlearn what is fun to them, sometimes it has nothing to do with the interaction itself but the context and condition of their participation. To design something fun, you need to know what is fun for the target audience, or have a way to introduce the interaction so that the audience accepts that it is fun.

 

If you know what is fun for the target audience, then the design should have the interaction that can lead to that kind of fun, and not so much interactions that would distract or discourage the player from it. The design would also need to show the player the fun part early on so that the player can confirm and anticipate more. The "fun" of the interaction is not in the promise by the designer that the game is fun, but in the player's anticipation of it.

 

If the interaction is new to the player such that the player has no initial feeling on whether it is fun or not, then the game and advertisement of the game need to define and influence the player to accept that it is fun. In this case, what makes the game fun may not be in the design of the game itself, but in the advertising method that promotes it.

 

Some advertisement methods include:

 

1. You present a group of people who find the game fun, and take advantage of the human tendency to want to do things with other people and not be left behind.

 

2. You show people having fun playing it and let the image sips into the audience's subconscious to let them accept that it is game that is fun.

 

3. Instead of showing the game, you start by showing a story that makes the viewer want to participate in the story world and be able to make decisions in situations similar to those presented to the story characters.

 

Sometimes once this gets going, the player would start to convince themselves that what they play is fun to justify the time they spend with it. At that point, it becomes difficult to distinguish whether the game itself is fun or just because the player asserts that it is.


Edited by Wai, 03 February 2014 - 03:29 PM.


#13 sunandshadow   Moderators   -  Reputation: 4578

Like
2Likes
Like

Posted 03 February 2014 - 03:33 PM

I wonder if there is a such term as "play mechanics", because personally, there are few games that feel like play. These war games feel like training or simulation.

 

There are indeed some different theories of play mechanics and psychology of how and why we play.  Script theory is one of them.  I was going to link to the Wikipedia article here but it's unusually lousy for a wikipedia article.  So here's my attempt at an explanation.  Young children's learning is focused on (besides learning to talk and control their bodies to manipulate objects) patterns of events, especially those which are socially regarded as having emotional importance.  Humans have an innate love of patterns, and completing a pattern can feel good to us even if the pattern itself isn't good, as the genres of tragedy and horror demonstrate.

 

Approval, disapproval, pain/punishment, pitiableness/sorrow, and celebration are categories of emotional meaning that children observe to be connected with patterns of events.  The term script actually refers to the template of a sequence of events stored in the child's head.  Most pretend play is roleplay, and roleplay consists of acting out one or more scripts, to the emotional satisfaction of the roleplayer.  Ursula Schwartz studied children playing pretend and came to the conclusion that Children’s pretend play is generally based on one of three basic scripts: separation-reunion, threat-neutralization, and deprivation-provision. Common variants of these include, for separation-reunion: death-rebirth, object lost-object found, person absent-person present; for threat-neutralization: danger-rescue, villain present-villain defeated, injury-healing; and for deprivation-provision: food deprivation-food provision, care deprivation-care provision.  From my own observations, slightly older children add scripts like: heroic accomplishment-party in the hero's honor/wealth/romantic admiration, brainy accomplishment-respect/praise/obedience from allies, efficiency-wealth/prosperity, stealing-going to jail, eating and/or practicing-physical growth/increasing in power, and all sorts of cultural concepts about what kind of role the player can act out to earn a particular response from others or the world.

 

These kind of things don't directly apply to abstract games, but players who choose a particular type of play often have a consistent reason for doing so.  Sudokus, for example, are typically regarded as a "brainy accomplishment", so people who choose that type of puzzle typically do so because they want to feel praised for being smart.  Those are a puzzle, but the same applies to games.  Hidden object games are often chosen by people who want to feel praised for being observant.  Tetris is a bit more complex - it could be about being dexterous, being calm in a situation that might cause panic, or making problems vanish.  Most games aren't that abstract, and use story and/or visual symbolism to explicitly give the player a role to act out and then respond to the player's success at acting out that script.

 

In terms of cognitive rewards, as Wai mentions, there are two different types involved here; both the pattern completion I mentioned at the beginning of this post, and the specific types of praise or other reaction that players anticipate as the payout of acting out a script.  These are not the only kind of cognitive rewards in game either; customization opportunities are creativity rewards, in-game currency and salable loot are economic rewards, and multiplayer games have both competitive social rewards and cooperative social rewards.  The various systems of player taxonomy or categorization are usually based on what type of reward(s) players look for from a game, and what action they want to perform within that game to earn that reward.


Edited by sunandshadow, 03 February 2014 - 03:42 PM.

I want to help design a "sandpark" MMO. Optional interactive story with quests and deeply characterized NPCs, plus sandbox elements like player-craftable housing and lots of other crafting. If you are starting a design of this type, please PM me.

#14 Tutorial Doctor   Members   -  Reputation: 1406

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 03 February 2014 - 04:36 PM


The various systems of player taxonomy or categorization are usually based on what type of reward(s) players look for from a game, and what action they want to perform within that game to earn that reward.

 

Good point! Hmmm. 

 

A lot of my posts can be tied together to show something more profound not just of games, but of humans in general. I usually only post on such interesting topics here. I am not just posting these things for a response, but for a deeper exploration of games. 

 

Why? Well, that is what I do for everything I learn. I dig deep until I find the gemstone. I then bring that gemstone to the surface and try to explain my adventure as simple and clearly as possible. 

 

Besides, how can you expect to find a gem like that on the surface? Otherwise, it would mean that games are simple and trivial things people occupy themselves with. Does anyone agree with that?

 

As a reply to that quote, it is interesting that you say "it's based on what players look for from a game."

 

If someone want's a story, they will play a game that tells a story. If someone wants to have some since of pride for being more intelligent than the next person, then they might play some strategy game like chess. In fact, chess was so popular in the world, and chess tournaments were so popular because it was more of a pride issue of nation against nation. If one nation had the best chess player in the world, then that meant that nation was more strategically competent than the others. It was a symbol of social dominance. 

 

I know for myself I like to play certain games to exercise my knowledge, or expand it. And sometimes I do it to show of my knowledge (wink). 

 

Perhaps this is the case in sports also, which are not games according to game theory. 


They call me the Tutorial Doctor.


#15 sunandshadow   Moderators   -  Reputation: 4578

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 03 February 2014 - 04:43 PM

Wait, why would sports not be games according to game theory?  In any competitive sport, whether 1 v 1 or team v team, they have a defined interaction mode and a defined failure mode that will occur by default if you don't play.


I want to help design a "sandpark" MMO. Optional interactive story with quests and deeply characterized NPCs, plus sandbox elements like player-craftable housing and lots of other crafting. If you are starting a design of this type, please PM me.

#16 Tutorial Doctor   Members   -  Reputation: 1406

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 03 February 2014 - 04:52 PM

Wait, why would sports not be games according to game theory?  In any competitive sport, whether 1 v 1 or team v team, they have a defined interaction mode and a defined failure mode that will occur by default if you don't play.


I think the difference was that a sport is based on ones actual physical aptitude, which is why chess is considered a game, and not a sport.

I guess it would be where physical dexterity determines the victor.

If me not being able to see as well as you determined your victory in that game, the game becomes a sport (seeing contest).

Dance dance revelation might then become more of a sport than a game when a component is introduced, therefore perfect for a competition.

I need to check up on the definitions, but yeah, they make a distinction there.

They call me the Tutorial Doctor.


#17 sunandshadow   Moderators   -  Reputation: 4578

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 03 February 2014 - 06:28 PM

 

Wait, why would sports not be games according to game theory?  In any competitive sport, whether 1 v 1 or team v team, they have a defined interaction mode and a defined failure mode that will occur by default if you don't play.


I think the difference was that a sport is based on ones actual physical aptitude, which is why chess is considered a game, and not a sport.

I guess it would be where physical dexterity determines the victor.

If me not being able to see as well as you determined your victory in that game, the game becomes a sport (seeing contest).

Dance dance revelation might then become more of a sport than a game when a component is introduced, therefore perfect for a competition.

I need to check up on the definitions, but yeah, they make a distinction there.

 

Almost all video games require some kind of physical skill or ability, so for practical purposes I don't think it's useful to focus on games that don't.


I want to help design a "sandpark" MMO. Optional interactive story with quests and deeply characterized NPCs, plus sandbox elements like player-craftable housing and lots of other crafting. If you are starting a design of this type, please PM me.

#18 ActiveUnique   Members   -  Reputation: 769

Like
3Likes
Like

Posted 03 February 2014 - 08:15 PM


I think what you were trying to get at is there's a deeply rooted Psychology necessary to understand games 'why?'. I'm just going to propose now that it's easier not to question.

So games have a human component. Using what is understood from Psychology we can explain why humans play games. I think this is beneficial for someone because it should explain why people like games that the reader might actually find quite boring.

 

What you might wonder is what other things a game has. Quoting Wikipedia: "The ludological position is that games should be understood on their own terms." Neither side of the ludology vs narratology debate sits quite right with me, I'm thinking of it as a more all-encompassing means that can be described and morphed.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphological_analysis_%28problem-solving%29

 

Sometimes there are too many possible solutions.

 

Here's some fuel for the fire. I haven't read this entire page yet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_studies

 

Maybe if I took a look at all the academic journals referenced I could give more insight.

 

edit

Riddle: If a game were a living thing; You can't poison it, you can't hold it, you can't fool it, it is immune to all disease, it is ageless, it defies gravity, it has children, and yet a game can still die. How do you kill one?


Edited by ActiveUnique, 03 February 2014 - 11:12 PM.

Mr. obvious was too ironic - ActiveUnique


#19 Mattkancode   Members   -  Reputation: 128

Like
2Likes
Like

Posted 04 February 2014 - 10:18 AM

I find the definition that Craford used interesting. It defines "games" and "play" by conflict rather than interaction. This is interesting to me, especially due to my recent experience (literally this morning) with a game called Proteus.

 

Link to a short trailer for the game

 

I mention this game because although most games are based around central conflict or combat, some can manage without that and still manage to be enjoyable. As people we tend to be problem solvers or conflict resolvers. I discovered this about myself during the time that I was playing this game. 

 

During my first ten or so minutes I was confused by my environment. I had no prior knowledge of anything in this game at all. In fact, I didn't even know it was included in the bundle I purchased. I started up and noticed a lack of mechanic in terms of player commands and control. I have no weapons, hands, items, quests, allies, enemies, etc. The only actions I could manage were movement, looking around, taking pictures, and this odd touch mechanic that I still don't understand. 

 

So all I'm doing is walking around, looking and listening to this very relaxing music. I pass by a large tree that is surrounded by some sort of bobbing wildlife at its base. As I make my pass, I see in my periphery, the small wildlife "bobs" retreat to the ground in a single audible "ting". I then pass a swarm of small bees as they pollinate a field of pixelated daisies. Again, there are the audible notes as they repeatedly drop onto the small flowers. The small tones mixes well into the soft, harmonious track playing over my adventure through my headphones. I look at the sun as it collapses slowly over the horizon. A mirrored image on the opposite horizon shows the white, cool moon rise. The music follows example and calms more so into an even more relaxing tune.

 

Throughout all of this, I slowly discovered that perhaps the conflict that we experience in games now isn't entirely necessary for a game to be enjoyable. Perhaps we shouldn't define a game by who you're fighting and how you're doing it. As children, we had great fun simply playing house or pretending to be various animals or people. This game really did a great job to remind me of the value of the mechanics that are sometimes looked over.

 

I guess what I'm trying to say is, a game is fun, a game is played, a game offers an experience. We shouldn't restrict ourselves to the subject matter because the subject doesn't matter. 

 

Games are meant to be played and enjoyed. All they need are the means to allow that experience.


Edited by Mattkancode, 04 February 2014 - 10:21 AM.

Student.

#20 Tutorial Doctor   Members   -  Reputation: 1406

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 04 February 2014 - 11:20 PM

Interesting trailer indeed. As for childhood games, that is what I want to capture, and I have some good ideas for a few. I think the Nintendo WII sorta captures that with several of its games.

The interactivity the WII's wiimote presented sort of brings back that childhood game feel, even a few I played using the move.

They call me the Tutorial Doctor.





Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.



PARTNERS